I posted this on the “CPAC was an epic fail” thread (which is likely dead by now), but I think it applies here equally well.
I’m enjoying very much your thoughtful discussion RAH, Jack and Laura. Nice a civil. Thanks. I’m gonna stick my oar in and feel free to take it for what it’s worth. I’m also not intending to attempt to put words in anyone’s mouth.
Issues of government and governance revolve around the legitimate use of force. Societies are formed by people coming together in order to protect themselves from common enemies, external (foreign powers who would enslave the citizens) and internal (criminals in their midst who would harm them).
Individuals cede to the society (in the guise of a government) their individual right to use force to protect themselves where the use of such force is guided by a codified set of rules. Institutions to provide for the common protection arise: police to enforce the rules against the internal enemies; courts to determine when the rules have been broken and framework for punishing the rule breakers; and a militia to provide the force necessary to protect the society from external enemies. These, the so-called “negative functions of government,” are the province of the legitimate use of force, and these functions require funding; hence, taxation.
The place where liberals and conservatives part company is that conservatives would be happy having a government limited to the negative functions whereas liberals, while accepting the need for the negative functions, envision the government’s role as going much beyond those limited functions. It’s like the difference, (sort of), when designing a business project, between the list of “must haves” and “nice to haves”, where the “must haves” are the negative functions.
It’s ironic that the “nice to haves” amount to set of beliefs. Government should provide education? Either you believe that or you don’t. The government should provide health care? Either you believe that or you don’t. The government should pay farmers to not plant their land? Either you believe it or you don’t. The government should tell you what to think? Either you believe it or you don’t. These are beliefs. The problem, though, is that when government gets involved the use of force becomes the issue. And the question becomes “is the use of force legitimate?” This strikes at the very heart of what liberty is all about.
From where I sit, among conservatives the idea everyone appears to agree on is fiscal conservatism: the enumerated tasks of the government (the negative functions) require funding. This sounds like a really good starting place, a place where the religious and the unreligious can agree to work together towards a common goal, namely protecting the free society that is America. In this case, “free” means for the people to have the jack boot of the excessive taxation removed from their throats.
Again from where I sit, it seems where the religious and non-religious part company is around the concept of “belief”. It appears, to me, as though the religious want to use the state to prescribe what are “correct” beliefs. Please, make no mistake, I fully support everyone’s right to his or her own beliefs; my issue is in using the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force to back any particular set of beliefs. If everyone is free to believe as he or she sees fit, then there is no issue. This is the religious liberty the Founders envisioned and was a large part of the genius of the Constitution.
So, I guess it comes down to this: is the conservative movement a social movement (I’m thinking, here, about what is the “right” way to structure a society) or a political movement (the “right” way to structure a government)? Moreover, I posit that everyone agrees that a successful political movement, by definition the winners of an election (ie: the government), should have access to the use of force. But should a social movement have similar access to enforce beliefs?
